Tieffenthaler’s account is further corroborated by the testimony of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya which states that Sita Rasoi was in the Vāyukona, i.e. north-west of the birthplace of Rāma.
जन्मस्थानाद् वायुकोणे पाकस्थानं तु कथ्यते।। (Xth canto)
It means that the Sītā Rasoi was situated north-west of Rāma’s birthplace. It was in existence on the exact spot until the demolition in 1992. However, the Sītā-kūpa, which is stated to be south-east of the birthplace of Rāma in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya, still exists there in the same direction:
जन्मस्थात्तु भो देवि अग्निकोणे विराजते।
सीताकूप इति ख्यातो ज्ञानकूपेति विश्रुतः।। (Xth canto)
Similarly, the Kaikeyī Bhawan, which was reported to be north of the birthplace and Sumitrā Bhawan south of Janma-bhūmi were situated in the same directions. The Avadha Vilāsa of Lal Das, composed in 1675 A.D., furnishes the same information about the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi. Therefore, there should be no doubt about the location of the birth-site of Rāma which was the same place whereupon the disputed shrine stood and it has been marked in the above Figure 11.2.
Our assertion that the Bedi which was the birthplace of Rāma was inside the mosque may shock many readers because they have been seeing the chabutara outside the mosque. But very few people know that this chabutara was constructed outside the mosque after the British takeover of the disputed shrine when they ousted the Hindus from the mosque to maintain peace in the area. P. Carnegy made this startling revelation in 1870 in his book in the following words:
“It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mahemodans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahemodans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”
What Carnegy wrote in his book is corroborated by many affidavits of the mutawallis of the disputed shrine. Besides, many Gazetteers and subsequent writers mention this fact that before the British takeover of the disputed shrine the Hindus and the Muslims used to perform their rituals inside the mosque.
Mir Rajab Ali, Khatib, Masjid Baburi filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner in a case against Nihang Sikh on 5th November, 1860. This Nihang Sikh was the person who had come from Punjab and occupied the mosque for a considerable period. He was ousted from the mosque by police forcibly with a Court order. When he was ousted from the inner portion of the mosque, he made the chabutara outside the disputed shrine. In his petition Mir Rajab Ali complained that the size of the chabutara was increasing day by day and Akali Singh was in no mood to stop it, despite opposition from the Muslim side. The following is the relevant excerpt from his petition:
घनकल दरख्वास्त मीर रज्जब अली मोरखा ५ नवम्बर १८६० ई० मोकद्दमा नं० २२३ साकिन मोहल्ला कोट रामचन्दर परगना हवेली अवध जिला फैजाबाद इजलासी जनाब डिप्टी कमीश्नर साहब बहादुर फैजाबाद मुनफसला १८ मार्च १८६१ मीर रज्जब अली बनाम अकाली सिंह
मीर रज्जब अली खतीब मस्जिद बाबरी साकिन अवध
गरीब परवरसलामत,
हाल खुद हाकिमी नशूह नेहन होगी मुद्दाअलेह का होगा हुजूर मै क्या गुजारिश करूं अरसा करीब ३० रोज का होता है कि मुद्दाअलेह ने एक चबूतरा अजराह जबरदस्ती वो खिलाफ अमल दरामद कबरिस्तान मुलाहिका मसजिद बाबरी में पास कबर काजी किदवा मरहूम के बना लिया है वो हर रोज चबूतरा बढ़ता जाता है हालांकि उसको मना किया जाता है मगर किसी तरह बाज नहीं आता बल्कि आमादा हंगामान को तकरार होता है वो फिदवी बखाफ सरकार तरह देता है।च
It is further corroborrated by the counter-affidavit of Mohammad Asghar in the case of Raghubar Das wherein Mohammad Asghar claimed in para 3 that upto 1856 A.D. there was no chabutara and it was constructed in 1857 A.D. The following is the para 3 from his counter-affidavit filed on 22nd December, 1885
घदफा-३. जाहिर है कि वक्त तामीर मस्जिद से ता १८५६ ई० इस मुकाम पर चबूतरा नहीं था। १८५७ ई० में बना और जब इस्तिगासा मुसलमानान हुकुम खोदने चबूतरे का सादर हुआ पस जाहिर है कि बिना इस चबूतरे की १८५७ ई० से हुई है ।च
Thus, the chabutara which was seen outside the mosque was built after the British takeover of the Oudh province and particularly after the ousting of the Nihang Sikh and his companions from the disputed shrine.
Thus, it is clear that when Tieffenthaler visited the shrine in 1767, there was no chabutara outside the mosque and the spot where the Hindus circumambulated the Bedi and prostrated in its front was inside the mosque. P. Carnegy, who was Settlement Officer at Faizabad since 1865 at least, confirms it. Apart from Carnegy’s book and several Gazetteers, the foreign travellers, who visited India in the second half of the 19th century, also confirm this harmonious existence of the two sects in performing rituals. For example, Edward B. Eastwick in his book ‘Handbook of the Bengal Presidency’ published in the year 1888 reports that before 1858 both Hindus and Muslims used to perform puja and namaz inside the disputed shrine.
SimilarlyA.F. Millett in his report of the Settlement of the Land Revenue Officer of the Faizabad District, which was published in 1880, writes:
“Several of the King’s regiment were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere. It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mahomedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule, a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.” (p. 236)
In our great country where there has been a long tradition of such harmonious practices it should not surprize readers. Ibrahim Shah, the King of Bijapur, who was called Jagat Guru by his subjects reverentially, had built such a shrine where both puja and namaz were held in the same building.
Now the question arises as to how this unusual phenomenon took place in this shrine. It is an irony that even in the books on the mediaeval history of Oudh names of two Hindu Governors Chhabile Ram and Girdhar Bahadur are hardly mentioned. Chhabile Ram was the Governor of Oudh at Ayodhya from mid-1714 to October 1715 and Girdhar Bahadur was very powerful Governor at Ayodhya from 1720 to 1722. He came to Ayodhyā after getting all his terms and coditions accepted by the Mughal authority. All the three posts of Subedari, Faujdari and Diwani were combined in his authority. He was instrumental in getting the jaziya abolished by the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah. It may be surmised that when Aurangzeb was the Emperor of the country, no Hindu could have dared to perform rituals inside the mosque built at his initiative. But when a powerful Hindu Governor was at Ayodhyā and a liberal Emperor Muhammad Shah, who had granted many villages to the Śanakara Matha at Bodh Gaya and renewed the land grant on the request of Ramaite Sadhu Abhayarāma
at Ayodhyā, was the Emperor the Hindus were probably given this liberty of circumambulating the Bedi at the birthplace of Rāma inside the mosque and prostrating in its front. This practice was stopped by the Britishers in the name of maintaning peace in the locality.
The fact that Tieffenthaler saw only Hindu devotees circumambulating the Rāma’s cradle along with prostrating in its front, and not finding a single namazi in the vicinity also proves that the disputed shrine was predominantly occupied by the Hindus.
Fourteen black-stone pillars were in the building; 12 pillars supported the interior arcade and 2 were at the entrance of the cloister. These pillars were reportedly brought by Hanuman from Lanakā.
Tieffenthaler saw a big mela on the Rāma Navamī festival to celebrate the birthday of Rāma which was reported to be famous in the whole of India.
Since Tieffenthaler’s account is a clinching evidence to prove the exact location of Lord Rāma’s birth and demolition of temples, established historians have tried to belittle its evidentiary value. In an article ‘A Historical Overview’ published in ‘Anatomy of Confrontation: Ayodhyā and the Rise of Communal Politics in India’ K.N. Panikkar has written:
“Joseph Tieffenthaler who toured Ayodhya between 1766 and 1771 has stated that the Emperor Aurangzeb destroyed the fortress called the Ramakot, and built at the same place a mohammedan temple with three domes. Others say that it has been built by Babur. Tieffenthaler has obviously confused the mosque built by Aurangzeb at the east of the Svargadvara with the Babri mosque. In this context it is necessary to make a distinction between the janmasthan and janmabhumi (location of birth and place of birth).” (note 53, p. 37)
Panikkar’s comment is not correct as Tieffenthaler has separately described the Svargadvāra temple and its demolition by Aurangzeb. Besides, he adds that ‘another mosque by the Moors is adjacent to the one towards the east’. Thereafter, he writes that after demolishing the Ram Kot Aurangzeb built another mosque with three domes. Therefore, he had no confusion over the Baburi Mosque as well as the mosque which was located to the east of Svargadvārī mosque. Similarly, Panikkar’s assertion that there is a distinction between ‘janmasthan’ and ‘janma-bhūmi’ is nullified by frequent promiscuous uses of the two terms in ‘Ayodhyā māhātmya’, Satyopākhyāna and other Sanskrit texts. The scholarly Professor Panikkar should go through the text thoroughly before making such comments or stop misleading readers deliberately.
Four historians, who wrote one-sided report to the nation, made the following biased observation on Tieffenthaler’s account:-
“The account shows that the tradition of treating the site of the mosque and its surroundings as sacred was now in its initial phase of creation, marked by the construction of a small rectangular mud platform of no more than 5 feet × 5 feet × 4 feet, and its identification as Rama’s crib. No tradition even remotely existed as yet of there having been a temple here; the entire place was thought to be a part of Rama’s ‘fortress’ or ‘palace’.”
In Tieffenthaler’s account there is a clear mention of the place where Rāma was born. The Austrian priest informs that there was a natal house (प्रसूति-गृह). In Sanskrit the house of god is called Devālaya. It is more frequently used than Mandir in Sanskrit. When some Hindu religious leaders founded a trust to construct a temple at the disputed site while P.V. Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister, they named it Rāmālaya Trust. Like Mahatma Gandhi’s birthplace in Kīrti-mandir at Porbandar in Gujarat, which is earmarked, Rāma’s birthplace at Ayodhyā was marked by a ‘Bedi’, i.e. ‘the cradle’. Is any more proof required for the birthplace of Rāma? Therefore, the established historians’ assertion that ‘no tradition even remotely existed as yet of there having been a temple here’ is devoid of merit.
Besides, these historians have erroneously equated ells with feet. If they had consulted Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, they would have known the meaning which is given below:
“ell (el) noun, a unit used in the past for measuring cloth, equal to about 45 inches or 115 centimeters.”
(9) William Finch (1608-11 A.D.)
William Finch visited India during the reign of Jahangir from 1608-1611 A.D. His brief biography has been brought on record in the fourth chapter. He writes that there are ruins of Rāmachandra’s castle and houses, and the Indians acknowledge then for the great god, saying that “he took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world.” He further writes that the castle was built four hundred years ago and in the ruins remain Brahmans who keep the account of the pilgrims. The following is the travel account of William Finch on Ayodhyā:
“To Oude (Ajodhya) from thence are 50 c.: a citie of ancient note, and of a Potan king, now much ruined, the castle built foure hundred yeeres agoe. Heere are also the ruines of Ramchand(s) castle and houses, which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great God, saying that he tooke flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world. In these ruines remayne certain Bramenes, who record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in the river running thereby: which custome, they say, hath continued foure lackes of yeeres (which is three hundred ninetie foure thousand and five hundred yeeres before the world’s creation). Some two miles on the further side of the river is a cave of his with a narrow entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a man may well loose himselfe there, if he take not better heed, where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither resort many from all parts of India, which carry from hence in remembrance certaine grains of rice as blacke as gun-powder, which they say have beene reserved ever since. Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold tryed. Here is great trade, and such abundance of Indian asse-horne that they make hereof bucklers and divers sorts of drinking cups. There are of these hornes, all the Indians affirime, some rare of great price, no jewell comparable, some esteeming them the right unicorns horne.”
Finch informs that Ayodhyā is a city of ancient note. The castle of Rāmachandra may refer to the temple of Rāma which was reportedly built 400 years ago. Finch’s date comes to circa 1200 A.D. and hence it may be referring to Hari-vishnu temple built during the reign of Govindachandra in the middle of the 12th century. While writing about an incident of distant past, a small gap of time may occur. However, some historians have tried to co-relate it with some fortification of the Delhi Sultanate period. But that is not correct because Tieffenthaler has clearly mentioned that this mediaeval fort was on the bank of the river Sarayū. He writes:
“On the high bank of the river is a quadrangular fortress with low round towers. The walls are out of repair and it is unfinished with inhabitants. Formally the Governor of the province resided here.”
During the Delhi Sultanate period temples at Ayodhyā were not demolished. As they were not allowed to be repaired and renovated; they were in ruins. However, the presence of Brāhmanas in the midst of the ruins confirms that it was a temple and the entire campus of Ram Kot was under the control of the Hindus.
Thus, from the travel account of William Finch also, it would appear that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma who “took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world.” The implied meaning is that he was born here. It clearly indicates that this site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and there was no mosque at the site till 1610 A.D.
(10) Joannes De Laet’s book (published in 1631)
Joannes De Laet is another author, who in his book ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’, has given account of Ayodhyā. He was a Flemish geographer, philologist and naturalist. He was born in 1581 A.D. and died in 1649. His public life began around 1625 A.D. when he occupied the position of the Director of the Company of the West Indies. Later on, he became one of the Directors of the Dutch East India Company. He was a voracious reader and as a Director he was in touch with East Indian affairs. This enabled him to gain knowledge of the East, especially of India, which he supplemented by a patient perusal of existing itineraries and geographies. He made the account of his findings
available to the public through a publication in 1631 titled De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius, i.e. The Empire of the Great Mogol.
This book was translated from Latin into English by John S. Hoyland and was published in 1927 at Patiala with an introduction and annotation by S.N. Banerjee. The brief biography of De Laet has been produced on the basis of the Introduction written by Banerjee. He informs on the authority of Sir Roper Lethbridge that this book on Mughal history was regarded both by De Laet himself and by the public of his time as his most important and valuable work. It is a small duodecimo published by the famous Elsevier’s of Leyden. Banerjee informs that the book was so popular that it had to be printed twice in 1631 itself. Banerjee estimates De Laet as an author in the following words:
Title page of De Laet’s book.
“De Laet is pre-emptly a compiler and his compilations are learned and laborious. No better illustration can be given than the first part of this book and above all, its first chapter (which includes Ayodhya’s description). How assiduously he pieces together facts dug out of a host of writings and how closely reproduced they are! Ptolemy and Texeira, Roe and Pelsaert, Terry and Finch, Withington and Hawkins, Steele and Crowther, Benedict and Garcia are all largely drawn upon, making the De Imperio Magni Mogolis a monument of painstaking industry and a storehouse of varied information.”
With this introduction of the author and the book, the following excerpt on Ayodhyā from this book is placed below:
“…thence (from Lucknow) to Oudee (an ancient city, once the seat of Pathan Kings, but now almost deserted), 50 cos. Not far from this city may be seen the ruins of the fort and palace of Ramchand, whom the Indians regard as God Most High: they say that he took on him human flesh that he might see the great tamasha of the world. Amongst these ruins live certain Bramenes who carefully note down the name of all such pilgrims as duly perform their ceremonial ablutions in the neighboring river. They say that this custom has been kept up for many centuries. About two miles from these rivers (sic.) is a cave with a narrow mouth but so spacious within and with so many ramifications that it is difficult to find one’s way out again. They believe that the ashes of the god are hidden here. Pilgrims come to this place from all parts of India and after worshiping the idol take away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit. This rice they believe to have been kept here for many centuries.”(emphasis added)
Ayodhya Revisited Page 50